« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
“ And he took the
gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink
all of it.
“For this is my blood of the New Testar ment, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
“But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my
St. Mark gives an account so similar to the former, that it is unnecessary to transcribe it. Both mention the administration of the cup; both, the breaking and giving of the bread; both, the allusion of Jesus to his own body and blood; both, the idea of his not drinking wine any more but in a new kingdom:--but neither of them mentions any command, nor even any insinuation by Jesus Christ to his disciples, that they should do as he did at the Passover-supper.
St. John, who relates the circumstance of Jesus Christ washing the feet of his disciples on the Passover-night, mentions nothing even of the breaking of the bread, or of the drinking of the wine, upon that occasion.
As far therefore as the evangelists Matthew, Mark, and John are concerned, it is obvious, in the opinion of the Quakers, that Christians have not the least pretence either for the celebration of the Passover, or of that which they usually call the Lord's Supper; for the command for such a Supper is usually grounded on the words “Do this in remembrance of me.” But no such words 'occur in the accounts of any of the evangelists now cited.
This silence with respect to any command for any new institution is considered by the Quakers as a proof, as far as these evangelists are concerned, that none was ever intended. For, if the sacrament of the Supper was to be such a great and essential rite as Christians make it, they would have been deficient in their duty if they had failed to record it. St. Matthew, who was at the Supper, and St. Mark, who heard of what had passed there, both agree that Jesus used the ceremony of the bread and the wine, and also, that he made an allusion from thence to his own body and blood; but it is clear, the Quakers say, whatever they might have heard as spoken by him, they did not understand him as enjoining a new thing. But the silence of John on this occasion the Quakers consider as the most impressive in the present case.
For St. John was the disciple who leaned upon the bosom of Jesus at this festival, and who of course must have heard all that he said. He was the disciple, again, whom Jesus loved, and who would have been anxious to have perpetuated all that he required to be done. He was the disciple, again, who so particularly related the spiritual supper which Jesus enjoined at Capernaum, and in this strong language: that “except a man eat his flesh and drink his blood, he has no life in him.' Notwithstanding this, St. John does not even mention what took place on the Passover-night, believing, as the Quakers suppose, that it was not necessary to record the particulars of a Jewish ceremony, which, being a type, was to end when its antitype was realized, and which he considered to be unnecessary for those of the Christian name,
SECTION SECTION IV.
Account of St. Luke examined-according to him,
Jesus celebrated only the old Jewish Passover signified all future Passovers with him were to be spiritual--hence he turned the attention of those present from the type to the antitype-recommended his disciples to take their meals occasionally together in remembrance of their last supper with him ; or if, as Jews, they could not get rid of the yoke of the Passaver, ta celebrate it with a new meaning.
ST. LUKE, who speaks of the transactions which took place at the Passover-supper, is the only one of the evangelists who records the remarkable words “Do this in remembrance of me." St. Luke, however, was not himself at this supper. Whatever he has related concerning it was from the report of others.
But though the Quakers are aware of this circumstance, and that neither Matthew, Mark, nor John, gives an account of such words, yet they do not question the authority of St. Luke concerning them. They admit them, on the other hand, to have been
spoken. spoken. They believe, however, on an examination of the whole of the narrative of St. Luke on this occasion, that no new institution of a religious nature was intended. They believe that Jesus Christ did nothing more than celebrate the old Passover; that he intimated to his disciples, at the time he celebrated it, that it was to cease; that he advised them, however, to take their meals occasionally, in a friendly manner, together, in remembrance of him; or if, as Jews, they could not all at once relinquish the Passover, he permitted them to celebrate it with a new meaning
In the first place St. Luke, and he is joined by all the other evangelists, calls the feast now spoken of “the Passover.” Jesus Christ also gives it the same name; for he says, * With desire I have desired to eat this Passover with
before I suffer.” Jesus Christ, according to St. Luke, took bread, and brake it, and divided it among his disciples. He also took the
gave thanks, and
among them. But this, the Quakers say, is no more than what the master of every Jewish family did on the Passover-night. Nor is it any more, as will